Jump to content

Talk:Riverside Church/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 03:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, this looks like an interesting, well-written article and I look forward to reviewing it. My MO is to read the article, list any issues or questions in sections by article sections, and then add a table of GA criteria and go through those items. I am detail-oriented, as a heads up, and if you disagree with anything I say, please let me know.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed completed sections to make tracking easier, can remove collapse templates later if desired

Intro and infobox

[edit]

History

[edit]

Congregation

[edit]

Progressive ideology

[edit]
  • 1st paragraph: In the sentence "Rockefeller then told the Park Avenue Baptist Church's leaders about the plan and then hired an agent to look at the planned church site.[16]" the second then seems redundant. Instead of "and then", perhaps something like ", after which he". Not a big deal, just throwing out a suggestion.
    • Done.
  • 2nd paragraph: "Initially," does not seem to be needed.
    • Done.
  • Just out of curiosity, why are there sometimes several citations for one sentence, like "At the end of May 1925, Fosdick finally agreed to become minister of the Park Avenue Baptist Church.[18][20][22][23]" - for something that should not be contested?–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Site selection

[edit]


Planning

[edit]

Construction

[edit]
  • 2nd paragraph: "Nonetheless," seems counter-intuitive. If Rockefeller said he was going to wait until the insurance claims were settled to continue construction, I would expect a delay. Perhaps "Nonetheless" is not needed.
    • Removed.
  • 3rd paragraph: "The first portion of the new church building. the assembly hall..." should have a comma, right?
    • Yes, done.
  • 3rd paragraph: Is the point of "thousands more were unable to enter" that "thousands more wished to enter?
  • General comment: Wow, very interesting information - particularly about the neighborhood renovation projects!
  • General comment: very cool about the Olmsted Brothers working on Sakura Park! And, I am reminded of chanting in the cloisters of upper Manhattan. i.e., it is bringing back great memories.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1930s through mid-1960s

[edit]
  • 1st paragraph - Does "with corresponding increases in enrollment at the church's Sunday school.[68]" go with the increased member count? Vs. the rate at which rooms are occupied?
  • Perhaps a link to Rockefeller in the caption for the image. I don't know what the style guidelines are, I just make it a habit to link where possible in captions - so if someone's eyes are caught by the image, they don't have to search for a link.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:58, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.

Late 1960s through 1990s

[edit]
  • Quotes around words / names of things. I don't see a need to put quotes around "reparations". I wouldn't have put quotes around the fund and the study, but that makes more sense to me, since they are unique names with specific meanings to the church.
  • I was wondering if the six councils from the previous section were able to make progress... or if the dissention that Campbell could still be due to a lack of organizational process and harmony.
    • They made progress, but if I recall correctly, it wasn't sufficient. I will have to download the book again. epicgenius (talk) 05:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it's possible to close that loop, it would be nice. It won't affect passing the article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done.
  • What happened to Evelyn Newman, if you know? Was she considered for the senior position in 1977?... Or, is it just the point that a woman was hired as a pastor?
  • What does "with Sunday morning service being particularly emphasized." mean? Over what?
  • Is "Body Lawson, Ben Paul Associated Architects and Planners" all one company name?
  • Amazingly lovely images, by the way... and you are a good storyteller, meant in the best possible sense for a non-fiction article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21st century

[edit]

Design

[edit]
  • 1st paragraph - Comma after "As of 2017"?
    • Done.
  • 1st paragraph - Earlier in the article it said that the proposed tower was 375-foot-tall, but here it says 392 feet. Is that because the 375 was just an early design and it was amended later? Or is a difference between sources?
  • 2nd paragraph - Re: "Pelton and Collens said that Chartres would provide the "fundamental principles" for the design of Riverside Church, but that the churches would have a completely different outline." Why does it say "churches" does that mean to cover the chapel and the main church?
  • 2nd paragraph - I don't understand "The rest of the exterior is faced with Indiana Limestone." What other stone or building material was used on the other part of the facade?
  • 3rd paragraph - for modernist, please link to Modernist architecture or directly to Modern architecture.
    • Done.
  • General comment - the 3rd paragraph is very interesting!–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Architectural features

[edit]
  • stopping for tonight... and you are probably wanting a break from all the detailed comments. Just like eating an elephant, I will take the article a bit at a time. I'm tired, but it has been fun reading the article. I hope you consider taking it to Featured Article status next.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you want me to just handle any minor, clear things, like links, typos, etc. - let me know. Then you could just look at edits to ensure you agree. Whatever works best for you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson, it would be great if you went over the minor typos. I think it would be better to list the major issues here, and would save time and effort. epicgenius (talk) 15:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, will do, Epicgenius.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Facade
no comments or questions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
  • I am not understanding "The tiles above the chancel and the nave's northernmost two bays are brown, because a sealant was applied in that section in 1953 to increase the acoustical reach of the organ, and had turned yellow over time." - how does adding a sealant increase the "acoustical reach"? (It may just be that I don't understand how adding a sealant would improve acoustics.)–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck this out after reading the Organs section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chancel, ambulatory, and apse
No questions or comments.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:11, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Narthex
No questions or comments.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chapel

[edit]
  • Gethsemane Chapel or Christ Chapel
  • In the Narthex section, it says "The mortuary chapel is known as the Gethsemane Chapel (known as the Christ Chapel prior to 1959).[151]"
  • In the Chapel section, it says: "The chapel to the south of the narthex, known since 1959 as the Christ Chapel,[144][159]"
Which is correct?
–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:24, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CaroleHenson: These are two separate chapels. The mortuary chapel, which was once known as the Christ Chapel, and the main chapel, which was the second to receive the name Christ Chapel. epicgenius (talk) 21:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius I added a note here. I am guessing I am not the only person who would be confused by that. How does that work?–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson, honestly I am not sure why that renaming was even approved in the first place. There must have been something going on back then. epicgenius (talk) 21:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tower stories

[edit]
  • Comment: I changed "used by outside entities, and as a result, some office rooms contain carpeted floors with fluorescent lighting fixtures." to "Over the years, several spaces have been used by outside entities, who carpeted floors and installed fluorescent lighting fixtures in some office rooms.[1]" - If you feel it is better the first way, feel free to change it. (underlined to make it easier to figure out what words changed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tower and carillon

[edit]

Carillon

[edit]
  • Comment: I added "of construction" to "final complement of 74 bronze bells, at the time the largest carillon of bells in the world" to clarify which time we are talking about. Feel free to edit if you think it needs to be corrected or edited.
  • Comment: I removed "the" from whereupon the 58 treble bells were replaced... since there were 74 bells were installed by that point, and there's no discussion of what particular 58 bells were replaced.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cloister passageway

[edit]

No comments or questions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther King Jr. Wing and subsections

[edit]

Stone Gym

[edit]

No comments or questions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basement

[edit]

Organs

[edit]

No comments or questions. (Probably don't need to say that, but it helps me keep track).–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Art and sculpture

[edit]

Rest of the article sections

[edit]

GA criteria

[edit]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Generally, very well written. See comments above re: mostly minor items.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Looks great!  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Very good sources in general. I have a question about Untapped which is the source for statistics, like tallest church in the country, etc. That is the only source I have a question about. See comments section below.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)  Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). There is a lot of detail in the article, but it's broken up into small, logical sections, so it's easy to focus on one's area of interest.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

Comments / questions:

  • I am not familiar with Untapped New York (or other cities) used for citation [135]. There are aspects that makes me think that content is provided by contributors (members). I don't see that there is an editor function here, or on other pages. There are a number of WP articles that use Untapped as a source, though. Do you know if there is an editorial function?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, the Untapped source is the only issue. If there is a better source for the statistical information, that would help a lot.

Please feel free to change the wording in the Tower stories section. And, I think that you said that you were okay with the rest of the edits I made. If that's so, we're almost done.

As I have been saying throughout, great job!–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CaroleHenson, thanks so much for the review. I have minimized the use of the Untapped Cities reference. I generally think it is reliable for minor facts, but always try to find the original source if possible. I don't think any person off the street can edit the website, but it's good to make sure. epicgenius (talk) 23:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure! Thanks so much for the changes you made with "untapped" sourcing. I am going to see if I can find other source for the largest church, etc. and then it seems we're done. If those statistics are true, they must be somewhere else with a reliable source.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Epicgenius, Please see these edits where:
  • I found some sources to replace Untapped for tallest church in the country,
  • I could not find a source for 24th tallest church in the world. And the List of tallest churches in the world has it listed at the 30-something tallest church -- just as a gut check, since we cannot use WP as a source, but it definitely does not appear to be the 24th now. I couldn't find a reliable source for 24th tallest... or another ranking. So, I put a parenthetical (among the tallest buildings in the world) - since I don't have a source for that, but readers can go to that article. It seems fine to have it as a parenthetical since a specific ranking is not given.
  • There are two new sources for the bells.
  • I left "Untapped" as a source and added a NYC architectural site that is the only other source that I can find for 14th largest chancel organ (or 14th largest organ).
I am not totally happy about the organ sources and the parenthetical for the world's largest, but I think it's workable and I am ready to pass the article. Thanks so much for your patience with me through all the minor edits, links, and questions.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Riverside_Church/GA1&oldid=1140566919"